DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/21/25 has been entered.
1) Claims amended:
(1) Independent claims: 1, 9, and 17, and, (2) Dependent claims: 6, 14, and 20.
2) Claims canceled: 7, and 15.
3) Claims new (dependent claim): 21 and 22.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-22 are pending. They comprise of 3 groups:
System1: 1-6, 8, and 21-22, and
Method1: 9-14, and 16, and
CRM1: 17-20.
All appear to have similar scope and will be rejected together.
As of 08/21/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently Amended) A system for reducing computational resource consumption and resource request response times by predicting resource usage and providing resource materials in advance of the resource materials being requested to facilitate improved system performance and reliability, the system comprising:
[I] a user device;
[II] a publicly available device; and
[III] a server comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer- readable storage media storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
[1] receiving, during an on-going communication, communication data associated with a service request from a customer;
[2] executing natural language processing on the communication data to extract one or more features comprising at least one of a keyword or a phrase;
[3] determining, based on the one or more features and historical data of previous requests of the customer, using a neural network model, a context of the communication data;
[4] automatically identifying one or more resources associated with the context by querying one or more databases, using the at least one of the keyword or the phrase, for resource materials associated with the context;
based on the service request originating from the publicly available device, during the on-going communication, [5] providing a first resource of the one or more resources to the publicly available device as a first response to the service request, the first resource being targeted to the customer and comprising one or more first instructions that provide the publicly available device with access to the first resource, and displaying, using the publicly available device, during the on-going communication, the first response comprising the one or more first instructions; and
based on the service request originating from the user device, during the on-going communication, [6] providing a second resource of the one or more resources to the user device as a second response to the service request, the second resource being targeted to a service agent, and comprising one or more second instructions that provide access to the second resource, and displaying, using the user device, during the on-going communication, the second response comprising the one or more second instructions.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[6] are added to the beginning of each step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22:
Claim category:
1) System1 (machine): 1-6, 8 and 21-22, and
2) Method1 (process): 9-14 and 16, and
3) Non-transitory CR media1 (product): 17-20.
Analysis of Step 1:
1) System1 claims 1-6, 8 and 21-22 are directed to a system for providing a response, i.e., resources materials, upon a service request by predicting resource usage and providing resource materials, comprising (1) a user device, (2) a publicly available device; (3) a server comprising: (4) one or more processors; and (5) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising steps of: [1] receiving communication data .. with a service request from a customer; [2] extracting a key word or phrase.., [3] determining a context of the communication data; [4] automatically identifying, based on the context, one or more resources; [5] determining a first resource and displaying first instructions, and [6] determining a second resource targeted to a customer service agent and displaying the second resource. (Step 1:Yes).
2) Method1 claims 9-16 are directed to a method for providing a response, i.e., resources materials, upon a service request by [1] receiving communication data .. with a service request from a customer; [2] extracting a key word or phrase.., [3] determining a context of the communication data; [4] automatically identifying, based on the context, one or more resources; [5] determining a first resource and displaying first instructions, and [6] determining a second resource targeted to a customer service agent and displaying the second resource. (Step 1:Yes).
3) Non-transitory CR Media1 (product): 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which when executed cause a processor to perform a method for providing resources materials upon a service request for conserving computational resources by predicting resource usage and providing resource materials, comprising (1) a user device, (2) a publicly available device; (3) a server comprising: (4) one or more processors; and (5) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising steps of: [1] receiving communication data .. with a service request from a customer; [2] extracting a key word or phrase.., [3] determining a context of the communication data; [4] automatically identifying, based on the context, one or more resources; [5] determining a first resource and displaying first instructions, and [6] determining a second resource targeted to a customer service agent and displaying the second resource. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for providing resources a response, i.e., resource materials, upon a service request by predicting resource usage and providing resource materials, of: (1) a user device, (2) a publicly available device; (3) a server comprising: (4) one or more processors; and (5) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising steps of: [1] receiving communication data .. with a service request from a customer; [2] extracting a key word or phrase.., [3] determining a context of the communication data; [4] automatically identifying, based on the context, one or more resources; [5] determining a first resource and displaying first instructions, and [6] determining a second resource targeted to a customer service agent and displaying the second resource, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea. As drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea of a communication exchange between two parties comprising receiving a request, analyzing the request, identifying relevant information (resources) to the request, providing the resources to the requesters, using generic computer components: [I] a user device, [II] a publicly available device; [III] a server comprising: [IV] one or more processors; and [V] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the use of at least one processor.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite an abstract idea related to evaluating a user’s service request, extracting keyword or a phrase to determine content of request, retrieving previous similar service request and solutions including resources, determining a first resource applied to the request including instructions and displaying it to the customer, and determining a second resource applied to the request including instructions and displaying it to the customer service agent, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, prediction, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for providing resource materials upon request comprising a processor to carry out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receive …request (data). Data gathering, Insignificant extra-solution Activity (IESA).
[2] Extract … keyword (data) … Data gathering.
[3] determine … context (data) … Mental.
[4] identify … resource (data) .. Mental.
[5a] provide response (resource) (data) Mental (prediction).
[5b] and display response (data) …. Data displaying, IESA.
[6a] provide response, 2nd resource (data) Mental (prediction).
[6b] and displaying response (data)… Data displaying, IESA.
As shown above, steps [1], [2], [5b] and [6b] are mere data gathering and outputting recited at high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [3], [4], [5a] and [6a] are steps for evaluating a request in an on-going communication, determining its content, determining (prediction) appropriate response, i.e., resources or solution, for the request, and determining and providing the response resources. These mental steps or well known business activities using a prediction model are carried out using a generic computer. The additional computer elements of [I] a user device, [II] a publicly available device; [III] a server comprising: [IV] one or more processors; and [V] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[6] above.
As shown above, steps [1], [2], [5b] and [6b] are mere data gathering and outputting recited at high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [3], [4], [5a] and [6a] are steps for evaluating a request in an on-going communication, determining its content, determining appropriate resources or solution for the request, and determining the source of the request for appropriate responses. These mental steps or well known business activities are carried out using a generic computer. The additional computer elements of [I] a user device, [II] a publicly available device; [III] a server comprising: [IV] one or more processors; and [V] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions. These mental steps or well known business activities for evaluation of a request and responses to the request by receiving the request, analyzing the request, determining solutions to the request and providing the solution to the requester. The additional computer elements of [I] a user device, [II] a publicly available device; [III] a server comprising: [IV] one or more processors; and [V] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, are generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). Mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification [0026-0031] and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of a type of communication, i.e., a telephone conversation, this further limits the abstract idea of the received communication data, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the received communication data, a customer’s request, this further limits the abstract idea of the received communication data and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 4-5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the received communication data, a verbal request and a part of user’s action, these further limit the abstract idea of the received communication data and are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the received communication data, key words from parsed data, this furthers limit the abstract idea of the received communication data and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of service request, originated from a telephone, this further limits the abstract idea of the received communication data, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 8 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the received communication data, real-time audio data, this furthers limit the abstract idea of the received communication data and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 21 (part of 1 above), which deal with further detail of a GUI for displaying interactive communication items, this furthers limit the abstract idea of the display data and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 22 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the publicly available device, i.e. on a digital display, a GUI for displaying interactive communication items, this furthers limit the abstract idea of the display data and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant’s comments on pages 8-9 that that the current claims are patent eligible for the same reasons as shown in the eligible claim 3 of Example 47 are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
118
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
142
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 of Example 47 have steps “( e) dropping the one or malicious network packets in real time; and (f) blocking future traffic from the source address” to remediate the danger in a “computer network” to detect malicious network packets and improves the computer network operation.
The last two steps (5) and (6) of the current claims are:
[5a] provide response (resource) (data) Mental (prediction).
[5b] and display response (data) …. Data displaying, IESA.
[6a] provide response, 2nd resource (data) Mental (prediction).
[6b] and displaying response (data)… Data displaying, IESA.
The steps are more providing “predicted” responses to the user device and the service agent. Applicant’s arguments on top of page 9 is noted, however, they are not found to be persuasive because they are mere “potential improvements” for a business process for providing appropriate response to requests to the customer and sales representative on a generic computer system.
PNG
media_image4.png
194
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
There are no positive citations of method steps on a real apparatus, i.e. computer network, i.e., “( e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time”, and “(f) blocking future traffic from the source address” to improve the network operation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the “2B test” is not persuasive for the same reason set forth above.
Closest Prior Art
JEFFS et al., US 2014/0.143.157, and (2) GANAPATHIRAJU et al., US 2014/0.067.391, and (3) OLLIPHANT et al., US 2009/0.076.949, and (4) ZHAO, US 6,889,222 fairly teaches the claimed invention except for steps [4] and [5].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689